triumvirate

Architecture plan review can surface hidden risks by orchestrating three adversarial subagents—Advocate, Analyst, and Critic—to debate the proposal, synthesize tradeoffs, and produce an amended plan with clear next steps.

Evaluating major system changes is best done through a structured triage and debate process where an Advocate, Analyst, and Critic review the implementation decision to surface strengths, tradeoffs, and risks, followed by a synthesis mechanism that outputs a refined plan.

To run an adversarial plan review, submit your plan text into the workflow. The system applies structured prompts to the Advocate, Analyst, and Critic subagents to debate the proposal, then uses a defined synthesis workflow to generate an amended plan.

Yes, you can use this to review implementation plans across any software engineering project. The adversarial debate applies to evaluating implementation plans, architecture decisions, and significant system changes regardless of the specific project domain.

Plan review with adversarial subagents requires no external dependencies or specific frameworks. It only requires a clear plan text with structured prompts for the Advocate, Analyst, and Critic roles to execute the defined synthesis workflow.

The output of a synthesized plan review is an amended plan accompanied by clear next steps. The synthesis mechanism processes the debate from the Advocate, Analyst, and Critic to produce this refined plan ready for implementation.